Northern Alliance and Taliban

[Elmo]

Who said the Americans are not cursed for their shortsighted policy? We still curse them for their short sighted policy in the 80s and it's short sighted policy post 9/11 vis a vis pakistan.

There is a difference between te war in the 80s to the one post 9/11.

In the 80s, a country was invaded by another. There were a few pro invasion and a few against. Those against got support to fight the invaders.

9/11, terror comes from the region and needs to be tackled. 9/11 and the terror preceding it and following it coming out from Pakistan was because of Pakistani policy of maintaining "strategic depth" read as keeping terror factory running.

"Strategic depth" - that's another debate altogether. Just one quick question, do you not believe that the US also gains from Pakistan having strategic depth versus India having the same?

I am not shifting the course of this ship to how the US is at fault - I agree Pakistan's policy have been less than flattering for many of its people, but as Muse, one of our members at def.pk, likes to bring up "narrative" aspect of it, the "narrative" here has been tunnelled. Read through the posts here, and besides the jingoism and extreme hatred for a country and it's people, what else is there? I don't even know which post you are referring to when it comes to proscribing blame on the US.

The Indian narrative (look at Tiki's recent post), solely puts the blame on Pakistan.

Lastly, pro-invasion or anti-invasion, giving arms to illiterate youth with little to no skills to survive in life otherwise (be it Afghanistan or Bosnia), that's criminal. The US was not justified in training those groups in the 80s. It's a monster that they actively helped create.

 

[Tronic]

"Strategic depth" - that's another debate altogether. Just one quick question, do you not believe that the US also gains from Pakistan having strategic depth versus India having the same?

I am not shifting the course of this ship to how the US is at fault - I agree Pakistan's policy have been less than flattering for many of its people, but as Muse, one of our members at def.pk, likes to bring up "narrative" aspect of it, the "narrative" here has been tunnelled. Read through the posts here, and besides the jingoism and extreme hatred for a country and it's people, what else is there? I don't even know which post you are referring to when it comes to proscribing blame on the US.

The Indian narrative (look at Tiki's recent post), solely puts the blame on Pakistan.

Lastly, pro-invasion or anti-invasion, giving arms to illiterate youth with little to no skills to survive in life otherwise (be it Afghanistan or Bosnia), that's criminal. The US was not justified in training those groups in the 80s. It's a monster that they actively helped create.

You are right that it is not right to have tunnel vision narratives. So lets snap out of it, and review as to why Pakistan is blamed.

The US funded the anti-Soviet Mujahideen. Yes.

Much had changed since than. The US ceased funding once the Soviets withdrew, it was game over. The Mujahideen signed power sharing agreements with each other, the Peshawar Accords, which led all the Mujahideen (barring one, Hekmatyar) to form an interim government, which led to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan being created. It was Pakistan alone which played spoil sport and started to arm and fund anti-Afghan/anti-Mujahideen groups such as Hezb-i-Islami and funding Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a rat who is famous in Afghanistan for double dealing and backstabbing, and is said to have spent more time fighting against other Mujahideen rather than fighting against the Soviets. In this double dealing rat, did the Pakistani government find their ally. Your country funded his militant group, waged war against the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and helped destroy half of Kabul. You wish to blame America for the evils done by your own government alone. The Taliban, which didn't even exist during the Soviet war, was another entity used by your nation against the legitimate Afghan government. Truth is, your government waged war against the majority of Mujahideen fighters which America had funded. Your government created the monster. Not America. It is Pakistanis who need to delve into Afghanistan's history to counter the blatantly false narratives fed by your government to your people.

 

[johnee]

Was it Zia alone - not that I have any soft corner for him, but it was the Americans who pumped the money into training those jihadis to fight the Soviets. But that's a chapter that most here choose to ignore.

Not speaking as a Pakistani rather citizen of the world (because according to one bloody rude Indian here, members are not equal), you reap as you sow.

It wasn't only Pakistany's heady general's shortsightedness that the mujahideen became what they are today - it was the US as well. If you insist on pulling down Pakistan, I think you should do the same for the US as well for 'favouring' Pakistan despite all this.

It was neither Zia nor Americans. It was the very inception and its grounds for the same that sealed Pakistan's future. Americans only used Pakistan as a condom to be in bed with the islamic fundoos like Mujahideen/Taliban. For that, they paid pak handsomely. Pak, on its part, was more than willing to be used in that manner.

As for Zia, blame is heaped on him unfairly or atleast he is unnecessarily singled out. Because Pakistan and its rulers have been and will continue to unmistakably radicalise exponentially.

Pakistan was meant to be what it is today and what it will be tomorrow. Nothing can stop it.

 

[nitesh]

It was neither Zia nor Americans. It was the very inception and its grounds for the same that sealed Pakistan's future. Americans only used Pakistan as a condom to be in bed with the islamic fundoos like Mujahideen/Taliban. For that, they paid pak handsomely. Pak, on its part, was more than willing to be used in that manner.

As for Zia, blame is heaped on him unfairly or atleast he is unnecessarily singled out. Because Pakistan and its rulers have been and will continue to unmistakably radicalise exponentially.

Pakistan was meant to be what it is today and what it will be tomorrow. Nothing can stop it.

Only one thing I want to say here, US has no hand in creating Taliban, it is an ISI's creation.

 

[Oracle]

Only one thing I want to say here, US has no hand in creating Taliban, it is an ISI's creation.

It was Benazir Bhutto who wanted to rein in the independent warlords of Afghanistan post the soviet war. And yes, ISI did that nicely.

US didnt create anything directly. US paid Pakistan to get them a good fighting force again the Russians. US knew what the pakis would do and pakis did that. US knew that pakis had their own ideas(i.e unleash them on India) for the fighting force assembled under the flagship of Islam. US didnt care for the side-effects or perhaps even welcomed it. It was a very cozy win-win for both Pakis and US. US defeated its rival without dirtying their hands. They only had to part with $$$ which they had in plenty. Pakis get another lifeline for their country from $$ thrown at them by the US. Simultaneously, they could use this jihadis to bleed India through 1000 cuts.

But now, US and pakis blame each other. Pakis throw tantrums like a jilted lover that US betrayed them once they had what they wanted and left the poor miss Paki to her fate. US, on the other hand, pretends as if it did not about terrorism until 9/11.

Whatever these two lovers pretend, we in India know and feel that this whole jihadi complex had been built by both US and pakis for their own agendas. India has been the constant victim.

It was the Mujahideens whom US supported. Taliban was formed in 1994, IIRC.

 

[johnee]

It was the Mujahideens whom US supported. Taliban was formed in 1994, IIRC.

I think we need to get out of these semantics. The fact of the matter is that Mujahideens transformed or reincarnated as Taliban. Same ideology, same tactics, same goals, same backers, same trainers....etc. The only thing that changed is the scope. Earlier, Mujahideens' primary goal was Soviet Union and its scope was limited to sub-continent. With taliban, under the auspices of PA, the scope became global. It may interest others. But for Indians, all these details dont matter. It is same force with same goals backed by same PA.

 

[Tronic]

I think we need to get out of these semantics. The fact of the matter is that Mujahideens transformed or reincarnated as Taliban. Same ideology, same tactics, same goals, same backers, same trainers....etc. The only thing that changed is the scope. Earlier, Mujahideens' primary goal was Soviet Union and its scope was limited to sub-continent. With taliban, under the auspices of PA, the scope became global. It may interest others. But for Indians, all these details dont matter. It is same force with same goals backed by same PA.

You're quite far off the mark with your history.

The Mujahideen and Taliban were two seperate identities which fought one another. The Taliban may have had some folks who fought against the Soviets, but the Taliban were formed after the Soviets had departed, where else the bulk of the Mujahideen who fought the Soviets founded the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, an entity which the Taliban waged war against. To say that the Mujahideen transformed or reincarnated as the Taliban represents a total lack of understanding of the history of the region. The chaps who fought the Taliban for more than a decade were the original anti-Soviet Mujahideen themselves.

 

[johnee]

You're quite far off the mark with your history.

The Mujahideen and Taliban were two seperate identities which fought one another. The Taliban may have had some folks who fought against the Soviets, but the Taliban were formed after the Soviets had departed, where else the bulk of the Mujahideen who fought the Soviets founded the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, an entity which the Taliban waged war against. To say that the Mujahideen transformed or reincarnated as the Taliban represents a total lack of understanding of the history of the region. The chaps who fought the Taliban for more than a decade were the original anti-Soviet Mujahideen themselves.

Taliban were formed after the Soviet departed while the Mujahideen proceeded to establish a governance. The Taliban defeated this regime and seized power. But who were the Taliban before they became Taliban. Were they ordinary Afghans who were suddenly transformed into a force that could beat a battle hardened Mujahideen? I am therefore assuming that much of Taliban was formed from erstwhile Mujahideens. They may have defeated faction inimical to them in order to gain power.

Nextly, as I said, the tactics, the ideologies, the backers and trainers(PA) are all same.

 

[Yusuf]

Strategic depth is an incorrect term as I have mentioned in many a post in many a forum. Strategic Depth is applicable to one's own country wherein there is adequate space to locate the military industrial complexes and the economic icons wherein it is not affected by the first flush of invasion or even the second. Afghanistan, being an independent country, cannot be a strategic depth of Pakistan.

This is where the matter lies. Pak thinks Astan is its backyard and under its sphere of influence and that is why the term strategic depth. Pakistan has no respect for the sovereignty of Astan.

 

[Ray]

On the issue of the difference of the Mujahideens and the Taliban.


The key difference between the original mujahideen and the Taliban is that the former waged a traditional type of jihad. In a traditional jihad, if waged locally, a contest over control of resources takes place between rival strongmen who each run their own private armies. In this scenario, the ultimate legitimacy to rule draws upon military strength, but the contest itself is called jihad simply because Islam is the sole language of political legitimacy......

The Taliban's conquest of Afghanistan in 1996, by contrast, strayed from the path of tradition. In a striking breach of precedence, the Taliban militia did not make use of their unspoken right to pillage and loot. They searched the conquered populations' homes, but only to confiscate weapons and so ensure a monopoly of violence for their state.......

The Taliban were exceedingly ignorant – which made them cruel – but there's no doubt that they saw jihad as a means to establish a state rather than legitimacy to pillage a conquered territory. Building a state was of utmost importance to the Taliban because without it the sharia law could not be enforced. If the mujahideen struggled over resources, the Taliban were concerned with religiosity.

The Taliban's choice of their capital city, Kandahar, was further evidence of their radically new approach to conquest. As already mentioned, historically Kabul drew its importance from the fact that the nation's wealth and the foreign embassies were concentrated there. The mujahideen's vicious fight over the city, which resulted in thousands of dead, and their disregard for public buildings, which they indiscriminately destroyed in rocket attacks, was rooted in the view that the capital city was there to be pillaged by whichever party that came out victorious.

The Taliban, in contrast, disregarded Kabul, moving their capital to the much poorer city of Kandahar. Accounts of Afghans who met Taliban officials all reveal a lack of interest in material goods or symbols of social hierarchy. Meetings would be held seated on the floor in a circle, erasing all signs of hierarchy that traditionally has been part of Afghan court etiquette.

Ironically, such egalitarianism was what the communists had dreamed of in 1978. But in such a deeply religious society, it is not surprising that egalitarianism had to come as part of a religious doctrine. With the Taliban, rural Afghans came to power, ruling over the more sophisticated urban populations. This, too, was a breach of precedence.

The 1980s mujahideen, the Taliban and the shifting idea of jihad | Nushin Arbabzadah | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

[Ray]

This is where the matter lies. Pak thinks Astan is its backyard and under its sphere of influence and that is why the term strategic depth. Pakistan has no respect for the sovereignty of Astan.

Notwithstanding what Pakistan does or does not, one cannot change the meaning of 'strategic depth'.

It is possibly using a term out of context and justifying the nation's interest in Afghanistan.

 

[johnee]

This is where the matter lies. Pak thinks Astan is its backyard and under its sphere of influence and that is why the term strategic depth. Pakistan has no respect for the sovereignty of Astan.

An independent Astan is more dangerous to Pakistan's ravaged integrity than India is. That may be reason to keep Astan destabilized. Strategic depth is just an excuse to justify this.

 

[Tronic]

Taliban were formed after the Soviet departed while the Mujahideen proceeded to establish a governance. The Taliban defeated this regime and seized power. But who were the Taliban before they became Taliban. Were they ordinary Afghans who were suddenly transformed into a force that could beat a battle hardened Mujahideen? I am therefore assuming that much of Taliban was formed from erstwhile Mujahideens. They may have defeated faction inimical to them in order to gain power.

The Taliban were created from Afghan refugees in Pakistan. However, out of all the major senior commanders of the Mujahideen, none went with the Taliban. The Taliban won, because they were being actively supported by the Pakistani army, while the rest of the Mujahideen were left to fend for themselves.

Nextly, as I said, the tactics, the ideologies, the backers and trainers(PA) are all same.

And that is the reason I said that you have much to learn about the history of the region. Tell me exactly what is same about the legendary Mujahideen commander, Ahmad Shah Massoud's ideology and the Taliban's ideology? There is a world of a difference!

 

[johnee]

The Taliban were created from Afghan refugees in Pakistan. However, out of all the major senior commanders of the Mujahideen, none went with the Taliban. The Taliban won, because they were being actively supported by the Pakistani army, while the rest of the Mujahideen were left to fend for themselves.

And that is the reason I said that you have much to learn about the history of the region. Tell me exactly what is same about the legendary Mujahideen commander, Ahmad Shah Massoud's ideology and the Taliban's ideology? There is a world of a difference!

When you consider specific personalities or leaders and their modus operandi, then Taliban and Mujahideen may appear different. But from a larger perspective or even from the foot soldier's perspective, its the jihad that is being waged. Some details may change from faction to faction or from leader but the framework is same.

I am assuming that much of Taliban are erstwhile Mujahideens(not necessarily the leadership or policymakers).

Its a case of simple evolution of aims and objectives with the change in scenario.

 

[mayfair]

When you consider specific personalities or leaders and their modus operandi, then Taliban and Mujahideen may appear different. But from a larger perspective or even from the foot soldier's perspective, its the jihad that is being waged. Some details may change from faction to faction or from leader but the framework is same.

I am assuming that much of Taliban are erstwhile Mujahideens(not necessarily the leadership or policymakers).

Its a case of simple evolution of aims and objectives with the change in scenario.

Read about the Kunduz airlift and it will tell you all one needs to know about who, what, when and why were/are the Taliban.

 

[A chauhan]

When you consider specific personalities or leaders and their modus operandi, then Taliban and Mujahideen may appear different. But from a larger perspective or even from the foot soldier's perspective, its the jihad that is being waged. Some details may change from faction to faction or from leader but the framework is same.

I am assuming that much of Taliban are erstwhile Mujahideens(not necessarily the leadership or policymakers).

Its a case of simple evolution of aims and objectives with the change in scenario.

Yes no doubt they all are Jihadis in essence !!

 

[Tronic]

When you consider specific personalities or leaders and their modus operandi, then Taliban and Mujahideen may appear different. But from a larger perspective or even from the foot soldier's perspective, its the jihad that is being waged. Some details may change from faction to faction or from leader but the framework is same.

I am assuming that much of Taliban are erstwhile Mujahideens(not necessarily the leadership or policymakers).

Its a case of simple evolution of aims and objectives with the change in scenario.

Yes no doubt they all are Jihadis in essence !!

Are you trying to say India funded Jihadists in Afghanistan?

 

[Iamanidiot]

Are you trying to say India funded Jihadists in Afghanistan?

Tronic my humble suggestion confine this discussion to PM's

 

[Tronic]

Tronic my humble suggestion confine this discussion to PM's

I think the discussion is very much on-topic

 

[johnee]

Are you trying to say India funded Jihadists in Afghanistan?

No permanent enemies, only permanent interests...and all that. We supported a faction that we thought could help Astan and India wishes a strong independent Astan.